We have reduced support for legacy browsers.

What does this mean for me? You will always be able to play your favorite games on Kongregate. However, certain site features may suddenly stop working and leave you with a severely degraded experience.

What should I do? We strongly urge all our users to upgrade to modern browsers for a better experience and improved security.

Kongregate is a community-driven browser games portal with an open platform for all web games.
Get your games in front of thousands of users while monetizing through ads and virtual goods.
Learn more »

> *Originally posted by **[fma1](/forums/9/topics/18534?page=20#posts-6299830):***
> > *Originally posted by **[simeng](/forums/9/topics/18534?page=20#posts-6299826):***
> > > *Originally posted by **[ryan1114](/forums/9/topics/18534?page=20#posts-6299712):***
> > >
> > > Why not let women fight on the frontlines. When fighting a war your fighting for a common goal. Such as for your people,freedom,etc. It shouldn’t matter on your gender.
> >
> > Are you implying that will is capability? If I want to do something, then I can simply just escort myself to commit that something to actuality even under seemingly lacking credentials? No; I’m afraid you’re mistaken in your claim that a common goal justifies a certain position in itself
> >
> > Although woman might want to fight for anything, if they aren’t able to do so, then they shouldn’t be allowed to try
>
> Actually, they should be allowed to try, since them trying is the only way that we can determine if they are able to.
>
> If a woman can pass basic training and fufill the requirements of physical fitness, then there isn’t really a reason not to let her in.
1.) I was assuming a generic trend to follow.
2.) Even if that generic trend is absent, I was solely meaning actual participation in a real war as opposed to merely a training simulator. Perhaps, I should’ve been more careful with my wording. Trying in a test is not exactly the same as preparation for that test despite the fact that the test material is based on the preparation.

> *Originally posted by **[vikaTae](/forums/9/topics/18534?page=19#posts-6255926):***
>
> Omega, the role of a feminist is to dissolve gender boundaries. Make things as equal as possible for both sexes, and fight for the rights of both. If you are going to use a word, at least check what it stands for before you use it.
>
> A militant feminist is as much an oxymoron as a militant athiest. I suspect you have just been talking to people who claim they know what a feminist is, then proceed to shit all over the perspective. Please don’t tar everyone with that same brush.> *Originally posted by **[vikaTae](/forums/9/topics/18534?page=19#posts-6256037):***
>
> It is really, but the people who refuse to change with the times, are the ones who are their own worst enemy. They fail to grasp that a true feminist organisation will fight for a man’s rights just as hard as they’ll fight for a woman’s, because the goal of feminism is equality for all.
oops, i missed that.
but i thought my case was undeniable. you claim that a feminist would fight for man’s rights just as much as a woman’s, which is patently false. feminists have been fighting for women’s rights for a very long time, and i’ve never seen them fighting for men’s rights, and please don’t bullshit anyone that there aren’t any men’s rights to fight for.
where are the feminists fighting to either abolish military conscrpition or gender-equalise it? where are the feminists combatting gender prejudice in the social court system and police investigation? where are the feminists fighting to equalise parental rights, so in a divorce it’s not automatically the woman that gets the children and the man that has to pay for them? where are feminists combatting the unwritten law that women cannot be rapists or even sexually harass anyone, and in any ambiguous case the man is always the culprit?
no, what you are now saying is either lying or astoundingly ignorant.

> *Originally posted by **[OmegaDoom](/forums/9/topics/18534?page=20#posts-6300369):***
>
> where are the feminists fighting to either abolish military conscrpition or gender-equalise it?
Me, for one. I absolutle wish conscription to be the same for both genders, and have argued in favor of it countless times. So does every other woman who wishes to fight for her country and knows damn well she can. So does everyone who wishes we could fight on the front lines. Its the damn men in charge who keep stopping us.
If conscription was equal for both sedxes they worry they’d have to think before charging in waving their dicks around in a declaration of war, and the concept of thinking before acting terrifies them. We will keep fighting, and we will get there eventually, but it will be a long, hard slog.
> where are the feminists combatting gender prejudice in the social court system and police investigation?
[This link](http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/May/12-crt-561.html), [This Link](http://blogs.justice.gov/ovw/archives/2136),
Word to the wise, gender bias, means bias based on gender. Honestly, its like you did no research at all.
> where are the feminists fighting to equalise parental rights, so in a divorce it’s not automatically the woman that gets the children and the man that has to pay for them?
[This link](http://womenslawproject.wordpress.com/2012/08/02/doj-issues-ground-breaking-consent-decree-addressing-gender-bias/)
_The function of a man’s rights in divorce is to ensure that both parties enjoy a level playing field regardless of gender, according to “The Complete Divorce Handbook: A Practical Guide” by Brette McWhorter Sember. Gender neutral decisions are made by a court in divorce proceedings. A man’s right to gender neutrality extends to all elements of a divorce case, from division of property to custody of children._
_A recurring misconception associated with a man’s rights in divorce cases is that the statutory and judicial preference in favor of a woman in regard to child custody issues exists today. The misplaced presumption is based on the theory that courts believe that a mother needs to be the primary caretaker of a child. With majority of families being headed by two working parents, the presumption that a mother is the primary caretaker of a child no longer is a reality._
> where are feminists combatting the unwritten law that women cannot be rapists or even sexually harass anyone
The problem is known about, and steps are being taken to try and [address](http://www.marieclaire.com/sex-love/relationship-issues/women-harassing-men-1) [it](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19536167/ns/business-careers/t/male-sexual-harassment-not-joke/#.UESZ9KDi6Cc). The problem is whilst feminists are on the case, we have to work against the tide of our culture, so it will take a while even with full effort, to start seeing equality. But then it did in the beginning as well.
> and in any ambiguous case the man is always the culprit?
Again, it is an issue with lawmaking that is known about. The fight goes on to make all laws gender-neutral. We are making progress, see above instances where gender bias has been removed from the laws. It’s not enough, but that’s why feminism is a movement – it moves further as time goes on.
> no, what you are now saying is either lying or astoundingly ignorant.
I am really getting sick of this. In the last three days you have called me ‘mentally retarded’, ‘thick’, ‘definitely on drugs’, ‘retard’, ‘a lyer’, ‘moral objectavist’, and now ‘ignorant’.
I do not charge straight at you, flinging insults at your person, targeting you and hoping to get my barbs in deep enough to stick. Why then, do you continually feel the need to do so to me? What is it about me personally you find so insideously revolting? There must be something, else you would target my arguments, and not see me personally as a valid target to attack.
So come on Omega, what is it about me you find so revolting, you just have to lash out at me?

> This link, This Link,
>
> Word to the wise, gender bias, means bias based on gender. Honestly, its like you did no research at all.
the only thing about gender bias in those links is the following:
“_The department previously found a pattern or practice of gender discrimination in the New Orleans Police Department_”
|_The work of the Civil Rights Division to investigate gender biased policing makes clear that improper handling of domestic and sexual violence investigations may constitute gender discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection guarantee of the United States Constitution_"
how does this show in any way that feminism is about dealing with such gender bias? all it does is state that such gender bias exists, and is considered unlawful. what’s your point?
worse, the entire rest of those very articles only deal with “violence against women”, constantly using wording like that. those very articles are kinda demonising men and painting women as the only possible victims.
> This link
>
> The function of a man’s rights in divorce is to ensure that both parties enjoy a level playing field regardless of gender, according to “The Complete Divorce Handbook: A Practical Guide” by Brette McWhorter Sember. Gender neutral decisions are made by a court in divorce proceedings. A man’s right to gender neutrality extends to all elements of a divorce case, from division of property to custody of children.
>
> A recurring misconception associated with a man’s rights in divorce cases is that the statutory and judicial preference in favor of a woman in regard to child custody issues exists today. The misplaced presumption is based on the theory that courts believe that a mother needs to be the primary caretaker of a child. With majority of families being headed by two working parents, the presumption that a mother is the primary caretaker of a child no longer is a reality.
so when did this change? why did it change? did it change because feminists demanded it? i don’t think so. in fact, isn’t the correct term for someone putting forwards man’s rights a [masculinist](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculinism), by contrast to feminist?
> I am really getting sick of this. In the last three days you have clled me ‘mentally retarded’, ‘thick’, ‘definitely on drugs’, ‘retard’, ‘a lyer’, ‘moral objectavist’, and now ‘ignorant’.
>
> I do not charge straightat you, flinging insults at your person, targeting you and hooping to get my barbs in deep enough to stick. Why then, do you continually feel the need to do so to me? What is it about me personally you find so insideously revolting? There must be something, else you would target my arguments, and not see me personally as a valid target to attack.
>
> So come on Omega, what is it about me you find so revolting, you just have to lsh out at me?
wow, i…i don’t recall calling you a retard. but uhm, yeah you kinda bring it out in me.
i have nothing against you, personally, i love you; i just need something to beat up against and you’re the best i ever found in representing that side. i’m sorry if i have been to, uhm, belligerent or accusing, or insulting, against you personally, i’ll look out for that from now on.
you are just so exquisitely articulate in putting up the model common pov that i so desire to challenge…

It has taken me a few days to get back to this I realise, and I do apologise for that. But, for various reasons it was unavoidable.
> *Originally posted by **[OmegaDoom](/forums/9/topics/18534?page=20#posts-6300790):***
> The only thing about gender bias in those links is the following:
>
> _The department previously found a pattern or practice of gender discrimination in the New Orleans Police Department_
>
> _The work of the Civil Rights Division to investigate gender biased policing makes clear that improper handling of domestic and sexual violence investigations may constitute gender discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection guarantee of the United States Constitution_
>
> How does this show in any way that feminism is about dealing with such gender bias? all it does is state that such gender bias exists, and is considered unlawful. what’s your point?
>
> Worse, the entire rest of those very articles only deal with “violence against women”, constantly using wording like that. those very articles are kinda demonising men and painting women as the only possible victims.
You are reading much more into them than is there. I was pointing out that the role of feminism as a movement is to eliminate gender bias anywhere and everywhere it is found. The original goal was to see us the equal of men in all social and legal matters. We are still far from that goal, but things have come a long, long way in the past decades.
However, in order to be the equal of men, the only way we can do that is to eliminate any and all gender biases. This affects both men and women equally. By eliminating gender bias, it forces the issue that the deciding factor in any incident cannot be the person’s gender. The links I offered were recent examples of where gender bias has been found in various legal ad governmental systems, and work begun on eliminating it.
Most articles are going to concentrate on women’s issues, because there are more issues of discrimination against women for being women _known about_ than there are for men. That’s not to say they don’t happen with men as well, but unless the men come forward and admit it has been happening, there is precious little anyone can do to help them.
Those with greater physical strength tend to abuse physically. Those with lesser physical strength tend to abuse psychologically. Both are equal types of abuse, but when a man beats a woman to a pulp, it is much more obvious to outsiders than when a woman strangles a man’s life in a knot of manipulation and deceit. So, there is an edge on recognising abuse to women from a visual point of view. Since it is easier for third parties to detect, it is going to dominate thoughts in dealing with it.
> *Originally posted by **[OmegaDoom](/forums/9/topics/18534?page=20#posts-6300790):***
>
> so when did this change? why did it change? did it change because feminists demanded it? i don’t think so. in fact, isn’t the correct term for someone putting forwards man’s rights a masculinist, by contrast to feminist?
It changed because of the feminist movement making a greater and greater push towards removing gender bias. A natural part of removing gender bias is that whilst a man cannot be considered superior to a woman purely because of his gender, neither could a woman be considered superior to a man based on her gender. A growth in men’s rights in areas traditionally claimed by women, was a natural counterpoint to the growth in women’s rights in areas traditionally claimed by men.
In regards to your claim that the correct term should be masculinist, absolutely not. Whilst you are right from a linguistic point of view, that type of thinking draws battle lines in the sad. It makes it seem that on the one side you should have women fighting for rights, on the other you should have men fighting for rights, and the two sides should be at each other’s throats constantly, trying to drag the other down, so they can pull themselves up.
In all honesty, that is the _last_ thing any of us wish.
Rather than succumbing to the natural human tendency to compartmentalise and segregate into camps of ‘us’ and ‘them’, a single cohesive movement towards equal rights regardless of gender, unifies both sides into a single cause. Since this is what feminism has always tried to do – remove all gender bias – it makes sense to keep using feminism as the overarching term for this movement.
You mentioned cases of sexual assault before. A woman is more likely to get away with such an act than a man is. That is regrettably true, for now, but it is something we wish to change. The situation as it is, gives one gender (women) greater rights than the other (men) in social and legal situations. That is against everything feminism stands for, and that gender bias must be removed to put us on an even footing with males.
Positive gender bias is as bad as negative gender bias. In both cases, it affects the members of one gender, for issues that are entirely beyond their control.
Your views of feminism have probably been contaminated by those angry women crying out that all men are evil and should be put to sleep. Those are militant feminists, and are as accurate a picture of feminists in general, as militant atheists are representative of all atheists. In other words, they are extremists, pure and simple.
To a one, militant feminists are women who have been deeply wounded by men, down to the core of their being. I used to be one of them, and it’s taken a long time to pull back from that abyss, and realise how far from the path I had fallen. If you have been wounded that deeply by something, you tend to tar all who share that feature with the same brush, regardless of their individual merits. You see the same thing in someone who was savaged by a dog when young. They have an instant fear of all dogs after that, no matter how friendly and lovable the dog they meet actually is; it is a horrible thing that should be destroyed, to that person’s way of thinking. Their view has been damaged by past individual experiences.
As a final note, I am absolutely against this current trend in ‘hiring the best woman for the job’, as has been happing a lot recently by high-profile companies trying to prove they are not sexist. By doing so, they are becoming even _more_ sexist than they were before, as they are once again discriminating based on gender. From a feminist perspective, it should be ‘the best _person_ for the job, as gender should not be a selection criteria at all. You examine the applications, and the skills, personality and ability to do the job should be your only criteria. The applicant’s gender should be completely immaterial.
That’s the goal anyway. That’s what feminism is all about.
> i have nothing against you, personally, i love you; i just need something to beat up against and you’re the best i ever found in representing that side. i’m sorry if i have been to, uhm, belligerent or accusing, or insulting, against you personally, i’ll look out for that from now on.
Thank you.

wow, almost missed this.
thanks for the lengthy, well written in depth post, vikaTae, and i see what you mean. i agree with most of it, but i still don’t agree that feminists in general have been going at it the right way; nor do i think Feminism seems like an accurate word for what you described, for the same objection you provided to my suggestion of Masculinism.
i would much rather go with “gender-equalism”. if that’s what it is now, i prefere that word. because “feminist” still makes me think of … of bias. the word itself implies it.
i mean those “advantages” that women have in social courts and stuff, where does that come from?
feminism was very necessary and has achieved great things. who can still imagine the Western world without women having the right to vote? but they fixed the wrongs for one particular group, which is a 50% group, probably the largest minority group you can find.
for a strong example, the police used to be notoriously bad at dealing with reportings of sex crimes. victims would be belligerently interrogated, or not taken seriously. then feminists complained about that, and fixed it, which is great. now police are forced to learn how to deal with such reportings properly, and are forced to abide such policy. but only if the victim is female.
domestic violence too. try to report being beaten up by your female or gay spouse.
or what about the “you can’t hit girls” sentiment. does that imply you _can_ hit boys? oh so, you just blame everything on your son for an easy solution…
when i hear “feminist”, i think of what they fought for and against. i think of men conspiring to keep women form being succesful in business, and to keep them from having voting rights. bad man and and victimised females standing up for their gender.
seems like a really bad flag under which to combat prerogatism of girls in the education system, etc.

> *Originally posted by **[OmegaDoom](/forums/9/topics/18534?page=20#posts-6326822):***
>
> thanks for the lengthy, well written in depth post, vikaTae, and i see what you mean. i agree with most of it, but i still don’t agree that feminists in general have been going at it the right way; nor do i think Feminism seems like an accurate word for what you described, for the same objection you provided to my suggestion of Masculinism.
Perhaps, but you can’t argue that some successes have been achieved -as you address later in your own post. Right way or wrong way, ultimately it is results that matter. We have a long, long, long way to go for equality, but real and lasting progress is measurable.
> I would much rather go with “gender-equalism”. if that’s what it is now, i prefere that word. because “feminist” still makes me think of … of bias. the word itself implies it.
There are plenty of equal opportunities commissions, and feminists do a lot of good in fighting for disability rights – which is something you perhaps would not associate with the term, either. It basically means ‘fight for equal rights’, and empowerment in that manner. I’m not really sure that a name change is necessary; rather that education is perhaps the best way forwards.
> i mean those “advantages” that women have in social courts and stuff, where does that come from?
The same place the old belief that females are second class citizens came from. It is a holdover from the days when “the man goes out to work, and the woman stays at home and looks after the children”. In that light it was only natural that society would give women a greater say where the children were concerned, precisely because it was expected that our role in life was to care for them.
> feminism was very necessary and has achieved great things. who can still imagine the Western world without women having the right to vote? but they fixed the wrongs for one particular group, which is a 50% group, probably the largest minority group you can find.
There is still a long, long way to go to get to true equality. Even I can remember the days when as a woman you are paid less for the same job a man does. There are very likely places in the western world where that is still true. The companies named and shamed by the courts, one by one. You still have glass walls, and glass ceilings. Invisible but preventing career progression or giving invisible limits to progression because of what you are, not who you are. Men have to deal with them as well in some circumstances. Both are wrong.
With the rise in female employment and female managers, sexual discrimination by women against men is on the increase. This is as wrong as sexual discrimination by men against women, and has to be fought against. There are issues in modern politics where older politicians are still fearful of women and you can see it in the policies they push for. That too must be fought against.
As an aside, there was women’s football televised during the olympics, by the BBC. It was the first time the sport had been televised. It ran in prime-time slots until the men’s matches started. When that happened, even if we were in the middle of a women’s football match, the televised coverage stopped, and focussed instead on the men’s match. It told everyone watching that men’s football was more important than women’s. Yes, if you dug around on the internet you could find the closing 30 minutes of the women’s match – they did that with the final, shoved it online only for the last half hour – but that’s not the point. It still sends the message loud and clear that in the mainstream, women are still considered inferior to men.
> for a strong example, the police used to be notoriously bad at dealing with reportings of sex crimes. victims would be belligerently interrogated, or not taken seriously. then feminists complained about that, and fixed it, which is great. now police are forced to learn how to deal with such reportings properly, and are forced to abide such policy. but only if the victim is female.
It is your right to demand they abide by the policy for all victims. If they do not abide by that, then you can -and must – take them to task on it. Only by challenging the old, established ways can we force change. Old behavior is entrenched. It must be forced to change, if it will not change on its own.
> domestic violence too. try to report being beaten up by your female or gay spouse.
Again, fight for your rights. The first women to tred that path went through absolute hell. Others may have to do the same, but there is far more help available now. Know the law, know your rights – they cannot discriminate based on gender – and fight tooth and nail. If necessary, yes absolutely do take the police to court. If they failed in their duty changes have to be made, and the courts have the power to demand that change.
> or what about the “you can’t hit girls” sentiment. does that imply you _can_ hit boys? oh so, you just blame everything on your son for an easy solution…
It is assault for you to hit someone of either gender. If a woman hits you and you did not hit her first, then yes call the police and have her arrested on assault charges. The laws are in place, it is up to you to use them. Over time the attitudes will change.
> when i hear “feminist”, i think of what they fought for and against. i think of men conspiring to keep women form being succesful in business, and to keep them from having voting rights. bad man and and victimised females standing up for their gender.
You have to do the exact same thing. The feminists will help you. Give you the support we never had. But, it is still a fight. Equality always is.

> I’m not really sure that a name change is necessary; rather that education is perhaps the best way forwards.
you mean conditioning.
> The same place the old belief that females are second class citizens came from. It is a holdover from the days when “the man goes out to work, and the woman stays at home and looks after the children”. In that light it was only natural that society would give women a greater say where the children were concerned, precisely because it was expected that our role in life was to care for them.
hmm, fair enough.
> There is still a long, long way to go to get to true equality. Even I can remember the days when as a woman you are paid less for the same job a man does. There are very likely places in the western world where that is still true. The companies named and shamed by the courts, one by one. You still have glass walls, and glass ceilings. Invisible but preventing career progression or giving invisible limits to progression because of what you are, not who you are. Men have to deal with them as well in some circumstances. Both are wrong.
in business yeah. the problem here isn’t sexism, but nepotism. the power here is traditionally in the hands of white, middle-aged (and in America, Christian, or in some fields Jewish) men. feminists persue to right this wrong for one particular large outgroup.
> As an aside, there was women’s football televised during the olympics, by the BBC. It was the first time the sport had been televised. It ran in prime-time slots until the men’s matches started. When that happened, even if we were in the middle of a women’s football match, the televised coverage stopped, and focussed instead on the men’s match. It told everyone watching that men’s football was more important than women’s. Yes, if you dug around on the internet you could find the closing 30 minutes of the women’s match – they did that with the final, shoved it online only for the last half hour – but that’s not the point. It still sends the message loud and clear that in the mainstream, women are still considered inferior to men.
actually, in this area, women simply are, on average, inferior, unfortunately. they’re not as good at football, or almost any sport. in some sports, there’s no actual mens division, just an open one, and one only open to women. essentially, women’s sports is a handicapped sporting event.
that men’s sports takes presidence in terms of viewing is only natural, i’d say. that’s not sexist. in fact, demanding equal coverage for women’s sports but not midgit’s sports or wheelchair sports or so, that’s sexist.
as a gender-equalist, i would support a merger, and not seperating sporting events by gender. for contact sports i could imagine some difficulty, but other than that isn’t it sexist to seperate it into two divisions in the first place?
> It is your right to demand they abide by the policy for all victims. If they do not abide by that, then you can -and must – take them to task on it. Only by challenging the old, established ways can we force change. Old behavior is entrenched. It must be forced to change, if it will not change on its own.
yeah that’s all good and well. but my point is made, then?
> Know the law, know your rights – they cannot discriminate based on gender – and fight tooth and nail. If necessary, yes absolutely do take the police to court. If they failed in their duty changes have to be made, and the courts have the power to demand that change.
well great that there are such rights, but that doesn’t change the problem that these sexist conceptions exist. i’m just trying to show that it is not always women that are disadvantaged by sexism in society, but that that is the image that feminists created. many people of both genders believe it. which causes many people to agree to changes where it benifits women, but not to changes where it would benifit men. thus it creates sexism.
> It is assault for you to hit someone of either gender. If a woman hits you and you did not hit her first, then yes call the police and have her arrested on assault charges. The laws are in place, it is up to you to use them. Over time the attitudes will change.
i was ralking about children there. there is a lot of grey area between a little slap on the wrist and beating someone to pulp. the police is almost never involved, and i don’t see children reporting their parents much.
also my point wasn’t exactly about violence, but about prerogatism. violence doesn’t have to be employed, just threatened with, for there to be a very significant difference here.
> The feminists will help you
it’s uhm…interesting that you said “_the_ feminists”. haven’t come accross that before. makes it seem like a trademarked organisation or something.
> Give you the support we never had.
uhm…either you define all supporters feminists, then claiming there is no outside support, which would be a fallacy; or you are claiming that there were no men that stood up for women’s rights, which is false.
also this support would depend on agreement, and feminists among themselves can’t even agree on anything. take prostitution for instance. they’ve violently opposed eachother on certain issues.

> *Originally posted by **[OmegaDoom](/forums/9/topics/18534?page=20#posts-6331742):***
> > I’m not really sure that a name change is necessary; rather that education is perhaps the best way forwards.
>
> you mean conditioning.
No, I mean education. The act of opening someone’s minds up to the possibilities, and giving them as many facts as possible, to try and encourage them to reach a position on an issue. Ignorance is the enemy, not education.
> > There is still a long, long way to go to get to true equality. Even I can remember the days when as a woman you are paid less for the same job a man does. There are very likely places in the western world where that is still true. The companies named and shamed by the courts, one by one. You still have glass walls, and glass ceilings. Invisible but preventing career progression or giving invisible limits to progression because of what you are, not who you are. Men have to deal with them as well in some circumstances. Both are wrong.
>
> in business yeah. the problem here isn’t sexism, but nepotism. the power here is traditionally in the hands of white, middle-aged (and in America, Christian, or in some fields Jewish) men. feminists persue to right this wrong for one particular large outgroup.
Feminists pursue to write this wrong for all genders, yes. Further than that is to right the wrong for all ability levels able to do the job, and so on.
The religion of the boss has little to do with it, as it is a personal preconception of the old establishment that women are inferior, based on the social stigmas they themselves grew up with. That must be challenged at every stage.
> > As an aside, there was women’s football televised during the olympics, by the BBC. It was the first time the sport had been televised. It ran in prime-time slots until the men’s matches started. When that happened, even if we were in the middle of a women’s football match, the televised coverage stopped, and focussed instead on the men’s match. It told everyone watching that men’s football was more important than women’s. Yes, if you dug around on the internet you could find the closing 30 minutes of the women’s match – they did that with the final, shoved it online only for the last half hour – but that’s not the point. It still sends the message loud and clear that in the mainstream, women are still considered inferior to men.
>
> actually, in this area, women simply are, on average, inferior, unfortunately. they’re not as good at football, or almost any sport. in some sports, there’s no actual mens division, just an open one, and one only open to women. essentially, women’s sports is a handicapped sporting event.
Did you actually watch any of the matches? They were far better than the men. They did not fall down nearly so often, and in general actually kicked the ball in the direction it was supposed to go. You may call it a ‘handicap’ to watch a great game where actual teamwork is employed, but I do not.
A woman’s body strength differential lies in her upper body, not her lower body. My legs are just as strong as yours. The matches are just as fierce, just as close-cut as they are for men – more so, since there is less of a tendency to go for a ‘star-striker’ who must, MUST for political reasons, always be the one to score. Women tend to cooperate more than men do. It’s a biology thing.
> that men’s sports takes presidence in terms of viewing is only natural, i’d say. that’s not sexist. in fact, demanding equal coverage for women’s sports but not midgit’s sports or wheelchair sports or so, that’s sexist.
How exactly is it sexist to fight or not to fight for disabled rights? Do you believe only one gender can become disabled or something?
> as a gender-equalist, i would support a merger, and not seperating sporting events by gender. for contact sports i could imagine some difficulty, but other than that isn’t it sexist to seperate it into two divisions in the first place?
Yup, but baby steps is what it is all about. You must learn to crawl before you can walk. You must learn to walk before you can run. By placing womens football on an equal footing with mens, you pave the way for a one-day eventual inclusion of mixed gender teams.
> > It is your right to demand they abide by the policy for all victims. If they do not abide by that, then you can -and must – take them to task on it. Only by challenging the old, established ways can we force change. Old behavior is entrenched. It must be forced to change, if it will not change on its own.
>
> yeah that’s all good and well. but my point is made, then?
Actually, mine is. You have to fight for your rights. The laws are in place, but it is up to you to see they are obeyed in matters relating to you. You cannot sit back and expect things to be handed to you on a silver platter. All of life is conflict. The only way you will get fair treatment is to stand up and fight for it.
> > Know the law, know your rights – they cannot discriminate based on gender – and fight tooth and nail. If necessary, yes absolutely do take the police to court. If they failed in their duty changes have to be made, and the courts have the power to demand that change.
>
> well great that there are such rights, but that doesn’t change the problem that these sexist conceptions exist. i’m just trying to show that it is not always women that are disadvantaged by sexism in society, but that that is the image that feminists created. many people of both genders believe it. which causes many people to agree to changes where it benifits women, but not to changes where it would benifit men. thus it creates sexism.
That’s where education comes in. Those men are wrong, same as the extremists are wrong. Misconceptions will change over time, with enough effort put into it. Many of the laws we need to work with are now in place. Quite frankly, if you cannot be bothered to get off your ass and use the laws that are put in place to give you equality, that is your own damn problem.
> > It is assault for you to hit someone of either gender. If a woman hits you and you did not hit her first, then yes call the police and have her arrested on assault charges. The laws are in place, it is up to you to use them. Over time the attitudes will change.
>
> i was ralking about children there. there is a lot of grey area between a little slap on the wrist and beating someone to pulp. the police is almost never involved, and i don’t see children reporting their parents much.
A slap on the wrist is still assault. Threatening violence is still assault. If you believe a child is being hit by their parents for crying out loud Omega, report it! Get the police involved. If there is domestic violence involved, those kids can be taken out of that household and placed with a new family. Their old parents can be sent to jail, where they belong. There is no place in civilised society for those who hit kids!
> > The feminists will help you
>
> it’s uhm…interesting that you said “_the_ feminists”. haven’t come accross that before. makes it seem like a trademarked organisation or something.
There are many feminist organisations. The equal employment commissions being a perfect example. Get in touch, state your case, see what help is available. Many will even fund your legal battle for you.
> > Give you the support we never had.
>
> uhm…either you define all supporters feminists, then claiming there is no outside support, which would be a fallacy; or you are claiming that there were no men that stood up for women’s rights, which is false.
there was no support outside the movement when things first started. Nowadays the situation is quite different. If you need support there are organisations you can turn to. Organised help that never existed back then. People who know the laws inside and out.
> also this support would depend on agreement, and feminists among themselves can’t even agree on anything. take prostitution for instance. they’ve violently opposed eachother on certain issues.
People are individuals. Different individuals agree and disagree on different things. I would have thought if nothing else, the existence of this very forum would have taught you that.

> No, I mean education. The act of opening someone’s minds up to the possibilities, and giving them as many facts as possible, to try and encourage them to reach a position on an issue. Ignorance is the enemy, not education.
well, as always, we have a completely different idea of what school does. but lets not get that far off topic.
> Feminists pursue to write this wrong for all genders, yes. Further than that is to right the wrong for all ability levels able to do the job, and so on.
>
> The religion of the boss has little to do with it, as it is a personal preconception of the old establishment that women are inferior, based on the social stigmas they themselves grew up with. That must be challenged at every stage
well i’m gonna cut that short, because we’re talking in circles. the way you talk about these issues i have no problem with, i’d mostly go on board with that, but unfortunately you don’t speak for all feminists.
> Did you actually watch any of the matches? They were far better than the men. They did not fall down nearly so often, and in general actually kicked the ball in the direction it was supposed to go. You may call it a ‘handicap’ to watch a great game where actual teamwork is employed, but I do not.
>
> A woman’s body strength differential lies in her upper body, not her lower body. My legs are just as strong as yours. The matches are just as fierce, just as close-cut as they are for men – more so, since there is less of a tendency to go for a ‘star-striker’ who must, MUST for political reasons, always be the one to score. Women tend to cooperate more than men do. It’s a biology thing.
lol…and i don’t even disagree with your argument of this particular way in which a women’s team would be better than a men’s, on average. but even despite of that…put a women’s team against a men’s team and the women’s team would get butchered. we know this to be true because it is what happened every time it has been tried.
there are a few exceptions, like some elements of gymnastics, but men are far ahead of women in almost all sports. it’s not just upper body strength, it’s also stamina, explosive ability (men’s sprinters outsprint women), concentration span, spacial awareness… i mean yeah, women have multi-tasking, and some musculoskeletal flexibility, but yeah…
also it has a lot to do with interests. there are far more boys taking up such sports than girls, so they have a bigger selection base.
another thing is that women i think used to even be disallowed to do sports, so most sports were developed for men, which can also partly be the cause for why men do better at them.
> How exactly is it sexist to fight or not to fight for disabled rights? Do you believe only one gender can become disabled or something?
well, even though you seem to disagree, women are well known to not be as good at sports as men. men’s professional sports go way further. so, imagine that i am just as good or better as the top 10 women’s tennis players, but yet i never win any tournaments so i never win any big pricemoney or anything. but women that are less good as i am DO win the big money and reputation and such…is that fair?
> Those men are wrong, same as the extremists are wrong. Misconceptions will change over time, with enough effort put into it. Many of the laws we need to work with are now in place. Quite frankly, if you cannot be bothered to get off your ass and use the laws that are put in place to give you equality, that is your own damn problem.
the problem is not the laws, it’s the conceptions. lets say two 15 year olds have sex some place where this isn’t legal, and their conservative parents have a problem with it. most likely the 15 year old boy will get a probational sentence or something, while the girl is seen as the victim, despite any laws prohibiting sexism, because such cases are usually arbitrary.
same with many other forms of cases. you keep repeating that the laws are in place, but people still have such sexist ideas, adn those ideas still affect how laws are implimented, and i put part of that blame on feminists. that’s the difference between you and me, and we keep getting there. i don’t think we’ll get any further.
education sure isn’t gonna help, because educators also have the same sexist ideas. in fact, prerogatism of girls in school is another known problem.
> A slap on the wrist is still assault. Threatening violence is still assault. If you believe a child is being hit by their parents for crying out loud Omega, report it! Get the police involved. If there is domestic violence involved, those kids can be taken out of that household and placed with a new family. Their old parents can be sent to jail, where they belong. There is no place in civilised society for those who hit kids!
ok, well i can clearly see your position on the spanking debate. but i sure didn’t realise i could report such when i was a kid, and i don’t think it would have helped much.
plus they always put the blame on me, anyway. manipulative bunch of psychotic ffneob goguesbh!
and note that putting people in jail for a slap on the wrist would probably be seen as controversial.
> People are individuals. Different individuals agree and disagree on different things. I would have thought if nothing else, the existence of this very forum would have taught you that.
lol. but it’s good to keep in mind that a feminist cause is not necessarily a good cause, as proven by their own disagreements.

> *Originally posted by **[Geenf11](/forums/9/topics/18534?page=20#posts-6338612):***
>
> You know what? Nobody should fight on the frontlines. It doesn’t pay much, and it just encourages more useless wars.
Hey we agree on something! Though, if there is a humanitarian crisis we should probably intervene. But women should not fight on the front lines. They are genetically different and inferior in combat. It’s just a fact.

> *Originally posted by **[Darear](/forums/9/topics/18534?page=20#posts-6338649):***
>
> Hey we agree on something! Though, if there is a humanitarian crisis we should probably intervene. But women should not fight on the front lines. They are genetically different and inferior in combat. It’s just a fact.
How delightfully mysoginistic.

> *Originally posted by **[tenco1](/forums/9/topics/18534?page=20#posts-6338774):***
> > *Originally posted by **[Darear](/forums/9/topics/18534?page=20#posts-6338649):***
> >
> > Hey we agree on something! Though, if there is a humanitarian crisis we should probably intervene. But women should not fight on the front lines. They are genetically different and inferior in combat. It’s just a fact.
>
> How delightfully mysoginistic.
Yes, I half expected this lot… Call it sexist, misogynist, and ill mannered I don’t really care. You cannot go through life calling people who don’t agree with you bigots. Is Phyllis Schafly, an advocate against the Equal Rights Amendment, a misogynist because she opposes this. She has a good argument. If all women are deemed equal in all aspects to men, then they would be considered for the draft. And during that time, Vietnam had been fought not too long ago.

If a group is expected to be treated equally, then they should also accept the bad things that come from being equal.
If Phyllis Schafly argued against the equal rights amendment because she didn’t want women drafted, then I would consider her a sexist person.

> *Originally posted by **[Darear](/forums/9/topics/18534?page=20#posts-6338803):***
>
> Yes, I half expected this lot… Call it sexist, misogynist, and ill mannered I don’t really care. You cannot go through life calling people who don’t agree with you bigots.
It’s not that I disagree with you that I said that, I said it because what you said fits with the definition of mysoginistic.
> Is Phyllis Schafly, an advocate against the Equal Rights Amendment, a misogynist because she opposes this. She has a good argument. If all women are deemed equal in all aspects to men, then they would be considered for the draft. And during that time, Vietnam had been fought not too long ago.
And if I remember correctly, back then it was uncommon for people, much less the rest of society, to consider women equal to men in the way you say. (save a few, but that’s slightly more predetermined.)

Vika, that is so much hooey. All of the men I know who have divorced don’t get the kids (except one) and the woman usually gets the gold mine, while the man gets the shaft.
> The function of a man’s rights in divorce is to ensure that both parties enjoy a level playing field regardless of gender, according to “The Complete Divorce Handbook: A Practical Guide” by Brette McWhorter Sember. Gender neutral decisions are made by a court in divorce proceedings. A man’s right to gender neutrality extends to all elements of a divorce case, from division of property to custody of children.>

> *Originally posted by **[Ketsy](/forums/9/topics/18534?page=20#posts-6338838):***
>
> If a group is expected to be treated equally, then they should also accept the bad things that come from being equal.
>
> If Phyllis Schafly argued against the equal rights amendment because she didn’t want women drafted, then I would consider her a sexist person.
sex·ism
[sek-siz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles.
2.
discrimination or devaluation based on a person’s sex, as in restricted job opportunities; especially, such discrimination directed against women.
How is Phyllis Schafly a sexist person? She’s devaluing her own gender? That doesn’t make any sense.

> *Originally posted by **[Darear](/forums/9/topics/18534?page=20#posts-6338898):***
>
> How is Phyllis Schafly a sexist person? She’s devaluing her own gender? That doesn’t make any sense.
Now this time, actually read what Ketsy said, she said **if** Phyllis did that, then she would consider her sexist.

> *Originally posted by **[tenco1](/forums/9/topics/18534?page=20#posts-6339093):***
> > *Originally posted by **[Darear](/forums/9/topics/18534?page=20#posts-6338898):***
> >
> > How is Phyllis Schafly a sexist person? She’s devaluing her own gender? That doesn’t make any sense.
>
> Now this time, actually read what Ketsy said, she said **if** Phyllis did that, then she would consider her sexist.
She did do that though because she feared for the protection of women if it were the ERA were to be passed. It is wrong and incorrect to call someone a sexist for that. Consider taking your own advice.

Whether I consider her misogynist or misandrist depends on why she believes that women shouldn’t be drafted.
If she feels that women shouldn’t be drafted because they’re not capable, then she’s devaluing females. (Yes, you can be a woman and not believe in women having worth.)
If she feels that women shouldn’t be drafted because she doesn’t want them to die in a war, then she is devaluing the lives of men (because she allows them to be drafted). I should note that even if she is against the draft in general, this doesn’t excuse it.
If you have the reason she felt that women shouldn’t be drafted available, I would love to argue with that. As it is and as I’ve said, it depends on why she believes what she does.

Ketsy, please explain to me why you think both genders are completely equal in all aspects and please explain to me how Phyllis Schafly is a misogynist for her views. It’s really a terrible argument, bordering on illogical.
Political correctness is very annoying. Women are genetically different than men are. They are weaker. Why is it sexist, bigoted, you name it, to point out this FACT? It’s not devaluing women if you fear they will be a liability on the battlefield rather than an asset. If you have a reasonable cause for why women shouldn’t be drafted, then why is it wrong to point this out?